Unredacted FTC suit shows 'Project Nessie' price-raising algorithm made Amazon $1.4B

Comments

• snekerpimp@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  So everyone gets $3.50 back?

  source

  • extant@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    No, the government gets a couple million in fines and Amazon raises their prices to compensate for the next quarter but never lowers the cost so they’ll make even more the quarter after.

    source
  • danc4498@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Free 2 week trial of AMC+

    source

    • nrezcm@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Autosubscribes at the end of the trial.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• TunaCowboy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  So what’s the government’s price fine for something like that, 5 mil?

  source

  • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    These kinds of crimes should come with a fine that’s 10x what y profited. Then even they manage to hide some of the profit, it’s still gonna hurt.

    source

    • catboss@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      And jail time as well as taking their personal wealth. Or throw them in the middle of the Atlantic, both options are valid.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• PeleSpirit@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The documents cited by the FTC paint a different picture. The project ran for five years, and whatever intentions Amazon had for it, it generated about $1.4 billion in additional profits. Amazon is quoted as deeming Project Nessie “an incredible success,” which somewhat contradicts their more recent statement. And if it was strictly about preventing “unsustainable” low prices, it doesn’t make sense that it would only target retailers that would match Amazon’s markups.

  source
• TryingToEscapeTarkov@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  and nothing will happen ever.

  source
• autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This is the best summary I could come up with:

  ---

  Unfortunately, when the lawsuit was filed, it was full of redactions, and Nessie was clearly the biggest risk, with every mention and entire pages of the section dedicated to it blocked by black bars.

  But the process in court is that these redactions must be first honored and then defended — and clearly the argument of public interest won out over Amazon’s preference.

  And so the newly unredacted lawsuit is sporting far fewer stripes, though the occasional proprietary or internal figure is still blocked out.

  And if it was strictly about preventing “unsustainable” low prices, it doesn’t make sense that it would only target retailers that would match Amazon’s markups.

  That it was “scrapped” is also questionable, since in 2022 the CEO of Worldwide Amazon Stores Doug Herrington suggested turning on “our old friend Nessie, perhaps with some new targeting logic” to boost retail profits.

  They may, however, have more detailed refutations in store in their own court filings, though on this matter of Nessie, they may well decide that discretion is the better part of public opinion.

  ---

  The original article contains 638 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  source
• blazera@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I dont know who yall think decides on what prices a company charges other than the company.

  source

  • bassomitron@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Can’t tell if trolling or genuinely boot licking Amazon’s anti-trust behavior.

    source

    • blazera@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Anti-trust means opposing monopoly, i assume you mean anti-competitive. And one company making price changes for their own prices is not anti-competitive, especially when its price increases. Thats encouraging competition. Competition is other companies aiming to sell to you for better quality or cheaper prices, and Amazon going up in price just gives competitors more opportunity to outdo them on price. That theyre taking the opportunity to raise their own prices isnt on Amazon in any way, unless it was a concerted price gouging scheme.

      source

      • -> View More Comments